Think, But Not Globbally

     "Y mae pizza gennyf i," I said to my son today, when we'd stopped at a diner in the middle of a fifteen mile bike ride.  It's remarkable how beautiful your own local place can appear when you're not zipping past it at fifty miles an hour.  We crossed trestles, old cemeteries, a train bed between a reservoir on one side and its spillway on the other.  We passed something called Poor Farm Road and wondered whether they had a welfare house there in the old days, or whether the soil was just too thin.  We followed a couple of dead ends on either side of a big lake.  Even the dirty graffitti, on a day like today, had its charm, as did a couple of drunks wobbling out of the liquor store, and some teenagers sitting on a twenty foot high rock.

     "What does that mean?" he asked.

     "It means, 'I have a pizza with me,' in Welsh."  My son is fascinated these days by languages.  Actually, it means "There is a pizza with me," which is how a Welshman would say it, just as he'd say "It is that I am in her loving," to mean "I love her."  It is a delightfully roundabout language, from what I can gather.

     It's as roundabout as Hebrew is terse.  That's another language I'm trying to familiarize myself with.  The first chapters of Genesis stun me with their terseness.  One of the professors at Grove City College was kind enough to show me an example of it -- the poetry of saying everything by saying almost nothing.  I don't know how to transliterate Hebrew, but I'll give it a try.  When the English reads, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light," that's an excellent translation, but it doesn't get across the sheer audacity of the implied claim being made about God.  The Hebrew reads simply, "W'yomer Elohim, 'Y'hi or,' wa-y'hi or."  The "wa" is just "and," but the rules of Hebrew syntax say that after a so-called waw consecutive, the perfect tense will take the form of the imperfect tense.  What that means is that the first "y'hi" means "Let there be," a jussive future, but the second "y'hi" means "there was".  It's a brilliant play, and sounds something like this sounds, in English, "And God said, Light, and Light."  Just like that.  No fiddling with the scattered members of some mother goddess Tiamat, no rolling fire-stuff into a ball, no anything but the spoken word.  It's a linguistic snap of the fingers.

     Later on in the chapter, God says to the birds and the beasts, "Be fruitful and multiply."  A perfect translation, from what little I know.  But in Hebrew it's a delightful little rhyme, almost a playful command.  "P'ru w'rbu," says God.  "Fruit!  Many!" -- if "fruit" and "many" were imperative verbs.  And sure enough there are mysteries.  I've found, to my great puzzlement, that the word for "naked," describing Adam and Eve, is the same word we translate as "subtle" or "crafty," when it's used of the serpent in the next verse.  (The Septuagint uses separate words too.)  So what was the author trying to convey, when he says that the serpent was the "nakedest" among the beasts of the field -- and then what does it mean when Adam and Eve suddenly see that they are naked, and feel shame?

     All of which -- I mean the odd languages and the graffitti -- leads me again to deplore that sneaky little invention of the Enemy, the silly saying, "Think Globally, Act Locally."  I agree with Wendell Berry on this one.  It is not really possible to think globally.  Maybe a few philosophers here and there can think about "mankind."  The sacred author thought about an Adam and an Eve.  I can think about the drunk down the street when I was a kid, and the witches my uncle married, sans broomstick.  But I no more want people to pretend they are thinking globally, than I want them all to have the same education, and speak the same language, and adopt the same customs, and have the same laws, and buy the same processed foods with the same Euro, and leach them out of their systems at the same Eurinals, now and in time to be.

     I am glad that there still is this thing called Welsh, and though it is no longer a productive language -- that is, it no longer possesses the means of creating new words, and must expand itself by allowing in all the parasites from English: "beisicl," "plismon," "basged," "desg," for "bicycle," "policeman," "basket," "desk" -- it still preserves a way of thinking without which the human race would be the poorer.  It's nice to say "Y mae yr Tad yn ein caru ni," "The Father is in our loving," that is, "The Father loves us," with an intimacy that the bare verb in English doesn't quite convey.  I no more believe that Welsh should be lost, than that Welshmen should be lost; as they would be, if they became merely Englishmen who trank their hale from a pottle.

     I see no reason why the human race should be thought the richer for having its cultures flattened into homogeneity, which is the unwitting project of everyone who "thinks globally," especially those who, with "multiculturalism" on their lips, ensure that by law the Tlingit in British Columbia will bow to the same miscalled "liberal" totems worshipped in the posh salons of Zurich.  If, for example, marriage customs are to be enforced upon the poor locals worldwide, then that is nothing other than the liquidation of custom and culture themselves.  If someone with a funny moustache were to harrow the world with his command, "Sie muessen alle Deutsch sprechen!", we might know what to think of it.  But we have been persuaded to consider the Glob to be our home: that great globular mass of water and earth inhabited by a soon-to-be homogeneous mass once upon a time called Man.

Comments

[Kamilla]

Beautiful, Tony. Though I must admit - before I read it I thought there was a typo in the title.

One of the things I regret about my heritage is that my grandmother was so fully Americanized that, but the time I was able to ask the questions and appreciate the answers, she wasn't able to remember much of anything about Norway. And the only words she could remember in Norwegian (at least this is what she claimed) were the words for *boil* and *bum* that came from a schoolchildren's little ditty about Ole Bull.

I find Welsh to be such a fun language, when you run across bits and pieces of it. I always thought Cymru was pronounced something like "Chym-roo" but I am informed is is more like "Cum-ree".

Kamilla

[Stuart Koehl]

Have you ever looked at how many Latin borrow words are in Welsh, which is, like Cornish and Breton, remnants of the ancient Britonic branch of Celtic? The Romanis were in Britain for less than four centuries, yet left an indelible mark upon the native languages there. They were in France and Spain far longer, so much so that the native Gallic and Celitberian languages totally disappeared. The Romans Empire was the last time anyone successfully flattened out local cultures. But we don't seem to lament that.

On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxons overran most of England in the course of a couple of centuries and were cocks of the walk until 1066, yet in that time their tongue totally displaced Britonic in their lands. Yet when the Normans showed up, they did little to English except provide us with interesting synonyms for commonplace items.

[Hainds Lairds]

Your comments about global versus local remind me of G.K. Chesterton's observations that long ago St. Francis thought only of the trees and not the forest.
Hainds

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Your comments about global versus local remind me of G.K. Chesterton's observations that long ago St. Francis thought only of the trees and not the forest.<<<

The world needs people who only see the trees. But it also needs people who can see the forest.

[labrialumn]

Bore da! Rhydrych chi'n da?

Cymraig (Welsh like Walloon comes from the Anglo-Friesian term for Romans) is practically a Romance language. The Britons were very Romanized, though when survivors fled to the Irish-colonized fastnesses of 'Wales', "Cornwall" and Cumbria, it got more celticized, I suspect. So, yes, lots of Latin loans words. Lots. In some cases apparent similarity with Saesson is due to common roots.

Using an apostrophe for a schwa is confusing, as it can also stand for various types of stops, whereas schwas are pronounced, at least around here (and most short vow'ls sound the same, to, y' know)

[Benighted Savage]

Anthony Esolen writes:

>>>All of which -- I mean the odd languages and the graffitti -- leads me again to deplore that sneaky little invention of the Enemy, the silly saying, "Think Globally, Act Locally." I agree with Wendell Berry on this one. It is not really possible to think globally.<<<

I and others I know have donated money to Christian missionary organizations, either directly or through a church. We did so with the expectation that, somewhere down the line, more than a few individuals would abandon their traditional religious beliefs and practices and adopt new and ostensibly foreign ones.

I have no doubt that we were thinking globally and acting locally. I also believe that we were supporting the homogenization of humanity that Mr Esolen evidently decries. I wish that Mr Esolen would explain in what sense we were participating in silliness and the work of the Enemy. If not, why not?

[Tony Esolen]

Stuart,

There are a lot of loan words from Latin in Welsh: stryd, "street" comes to mind, and "canu," to sing. But the language was still pretty healthy.

I don't know to what extent the Romans can have crushed local cultures. Languages disappear sometimes (not always) with military conquest. But customs do not always disappear. Sometimes religions go underground and become more fruitful than before, as seems to have happened in Greece when the Indo-European tribes brought Zeus and Company down upon the native worshippers of fertility gods.

What we now have, with mass marketing and production, and mass entertainment, is the possibility of wiping local culture (and I'll almost say culture itself) out of existence, period. That's something the Romans couldn't have dreamed of -- though they were fairly tolerant of local culture, so long as you paid your taxes.

Benighted Savage's comment strikes home. I too want everyone to know about Jesus Christ. I've written about this before -- and I'm going out on a limb, but here goes: it seems to me that Christ can be made manifest in every culture; that Christianity does not determine culture in the same way that Judaism does, or Islam, or Shinto (Shinto simply IS a culture, from what I can gather). There's something to the idea that Christianity transforms a culture, exalting what is true in it, rather than destroying it. If you persuaded me that preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth would destroy cultures to the ends of the earth, I would say, "Preach the Gospel!" We have been commanded to do so. But I deny your major premise.

[Neil Gussman]

Tony,
I spent last week training in a Live Fire Shoot House. There are videos on You Tube if you have never seen one. We were the first class through a brand new shoot house. Our instructor was a Welshman named Phil. He was very careful to point out that he is NOT English. He is the same age as me--55. He enlisted at 15 and 1/2. Became a paratropper at 17, and joined the SAS (Brit special forces) at 24. He was part of the Tehran hostage rescue. He let us know throughout the week that he is as proud of his cultural heritage as of his service. I have other friends from across the ocean who are Normand, Parisian, Scotch, Hessian and manage to combine their national pride with pride of place rather well.

[DGP]

>>There's something to the idea that Christianity transforms a culture, exalting what is true in it, rather than destroying it.

I think we have to believe this -- that in fact it follows directly from revelation, particularly the anti-Judaizing passages such as the Council of Jerusalem and Paul's strenuous denunciations in Galatians. The Church is bigger on the inside than on the outside, and in fact the world outside the Church is a rather small, dismal affair. Those elements of culture that are opposed or corrected by the Gospel are precisely the flat, gray, lifeless, and oppressive elements -- the things that enslave man (sometimes literally) and stifle his imagination and creativity.

The proper analogy is to the sacramentality of marriage or the morality of family life. Do these things "homogenize" sex or children? On the contrary, they preserve man from a dreary slavery and consequent homogenization.

[David Gray]

>There's something to the idea that Christianity transforms a culture, exalting what is true in it, rather than destroying it.

Which means we don't need to gut our own culture in order to reach other cultures...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What we now have, with mass marketing and production, and mass entertainment, is the possibility of wiping local culture (and I'll almost say culture itself) out of existence, period. That's something the Romans couldn't have dreamed of -- though they were fairly tolerant of local culture, so long as you paid your taxes.<<<

To a very large extent, the Roman Empire was a business. At first, it was basically a protection racket (some things never change): the Romans come and beat you up, then offer to let you in on the business if you help them beat up other people. That's how they got started, conquering italy and all that.

But then, later, they became retailers of a product they called "romanitas", which they peddled to all the peoples they conquered. Gradually word got out to people the Romans hadn't conquered, and they wanted it so badly they invaded the Roman Empire and eventually took over themselces.

But guess what? Even after the Empire passed away, the idea of romanitas lived on, and every tinpot barbarian kind and warlord began giving himself hoity-toity Roman titles like dux and comes and kaiser, and began dressing like Romans, decorating their houses like Romans, trying to speak Latin like Romans, and basically forgetting that they were a bunch of drunken, beer-swilling Germans from the Teutobergerwald. They went native in a big way, and while they were never really very good Romans, they stopped being barbarians along the way.

The Romans were gone, but their cultural imperialism outlived them. Things really haven't changed all that much. Materially inferior cultures envy and eventually adopt much of what superior cultures have to offer. The pace may have picked up a bit due to technology, but I think you overestimate how pervasive or deep the phenomenon is. My perambulations around Europe did show me some very superficial examples of Americanization, but on the whole, there has been no flattening of local cultures, save perhaps in the big cities. Out in the countryside and the provincial towns, regionalism still rules. Heck, local accents and dialects are still going strong, which is the last thing you would expect in the presence of television. So perhaps the situation isn't as bleak as you think.

Moreover, outside of Europe, if you look at indigenous cultures without romanticizing or sentimentalizing, Westernization has been no bad thing.

[labrialumn]

I agree with Tony on missions and Stuart on Romanitas.

In fact, we are still very Romanized. Most of our streets and country roads are straight, on a grid. Many of our public buildings have pseudo-classical stylistic elements. We have a Senate. (Some are even suggesting we replace the executive branch's presidency with a triumvirate modeled on the era of the fall of the Republic!)

When the Angles and Jutes invaded Britain (assisting their kinsmen who came as foederatii), the natives resisted as Romans, not as Celts.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>(Some are even suggesting we replace the executive branch's presidency with a triumvirate modeled on the era of the fall of the Republic!)<<<

Why not just two consuls, five praetors, several aediles, a host of tribunes and three hundred senators. And, oh, by all means have all candidates pass a property test in order to be elected or seconded.

[Ethan C.]

>>Some are even suggesting we replace the executive branch's presidency with a triumvirate modeled on the era of the fall of the Republic!<<

I wonder how many of them have considered how effective that form of government was in preventing said fall from occurring?

[labrialumn]

Ethan, exactly my point!

We do seem to be in the Age of the Gracci, if not later. :-(

Stuart, they didn't -realize- that this had been tried before, they were just thinking that maybe instead of one president, we should have three.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I wonder how many of them have considered how effective that form of government was in preventing said fall from occurring?<<<

Actually, the two triumvirates marked the fall itself, a final and permanent breakdown of the system which had served Rome well for more than 400 years, seen it through the crises of the Punic Wars and won for it an empire.

It was that empire that in part was responsible for the fall, since Rome's style of government, with its one-year magistracies, rule by popular amateurs, and lack of a bureaucracy was designed for a city-state with limited regional holdings, nor for a trans-national superstate. To govern the Empire, Rome needed governors. The only people available were former magistrates, who were sent out as propraetors and proconsuls. This, combined with the wealth pouring into Rome from its new provinces meant governorships were seen mainly as a way of accumulating wealth with which to seek the next higher position, or to feather one's nest for a luxurious retirement. As one wag put it, to be successful, you needed three fortunes--one to get elected to office, one to defend yourself against prosecution one one got out of office, and a third on which to live.

That brings us to the other thing that brought down the republic--the criminalization of politics. In Rome, there was no state prosecutor; private individuals had to bring criminal cases before the courts (composed of senators and equestrians, and presided over by praetors or consuls). Increasingly, political adversaries were brining each other to court for prosecution over policy disagreements, not merely behavior while in office.

This was due as much as anything to the emergence of factions in the government, a phenomenon dating back to the Gracchi Brothers. Previously, one of the most distinguishing features of the Roman system was its willingness to open the ranks of its elite to newcomers and expand its base of support through cooption. But by the end of the second century BC, the open oligarchy had become closed to "new men", which was unfortunate as changing economic and social conditions meant that the old families of nobiles, both patrician and plebian, were running out of gas. Though the old distinction between the "Boni" and the "Popularii" is too simplistic, the fact remains that politicians on both sides were willing to use the law, rather than the electoral process, to get what they wanted.

Ultimately, through the use of the law to stifle the popular will, the "boni" (for lack of a better term) ended up alienating the three most powerful men in Rome--Gn. Pomeius Magnus, M. Licinius Crassus, and G. Julius Caesar, driving together into an alliance (the first triumvirate) three men who otherwise had some very fundamental political differences. By each assisting the others in getting his highest priorities passed into law, the Triumvirs pleased each other and also managed to take control of all state institutions. At that point, the Republic was dead political system walking.

The death of Crassus at the Battle of Carrahae in Syria kicked one leg out of the stool, which could not stand on the remaining two. Pompey unwisely through his lot in with the Boni because he could not stand the affront to his dignitas of being second fiddle to Caesar (the fact that as a Picentiine upstart Pompey was himself despised by the Boni went over his head). Caesar could not stand the affront to this dignitas that would come from laying down his imperium and being prosecuted, stripped of his wealth and position by the Boni, and driven into exile. Thus civil was became inevitable, one that ended with the corpse of the Republic buried for good with Caesar's elevation to Dictator for Life. What followed after his assassination is anticlimax; autocracy was inevitable because the ruling class, aside from having been decimated in war and proscription, was simply incapable of ruling any longer.

I'm more than a little concerned with the kinds of parallels I see in the United States, going back perhaps two decades, most especially the criminalization of politics by the Left and the Left's unwillingness to tolerate any forms of political diversity. This is both radicalizing politics and driving the best men out of the game. In such a situation, the established constitutional government finds it increasingly difficult to act decisively in crisis, which eventually will result in someone calling for an executive with dictatorial powers (remember, the Roman republic had such an office, but only for six months at a time, and seldom extended to a single man more than once), a move fraught with a high risk of abuse and eventual degeneration into autocracy itself.

[DGP]

>>This is both radicalizing politics and driving the best men out of the game.

Just as democracy without reason devolves to demagoguery, so does democracy, when no longer oriented toward peace with one's neighbors, devolve to brinksmanship.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Just as democracy without reason devolves to demagoguery, so does democracy, when no longer oriented toward peace with one's neighbors, devolve to brinksmanship.<<<

I am not sure how that statement relates to the quote you cited:

>>>This is both radicalizing politics and driving the best men out of the game.<<<

[Bobby Neal Winters]

Stuart,
A friend of mine who is a political scientist thinks we should change to a parlimentary system. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Bobby

[Judy K. Warner]

I have thoughts on that, Bobby. When you have a parliamentary system you can no longer have divided government. Our executive and legislative branches have often been of different parties, and this is seen by many people as a check on radical change. Undivided government at this point would be an unmitigated disaster. If Obama wins and we have a Democrat Congress, we will see unprecedented measures taken, some to carry out a liberal or radical agenda in foreign and domestic policy, and some to ensure retaining power. For the latter, we are promised a clampdown on free speech. As examples of the former, Obama promises to sign a bill undoing the ban on partial-birth abortion, and to negotiate without preconditions with our worst enemies. Some of this can be done anyway by the executive, but having at least one house of Congress provide a check has mostly been a good thing. John McCain has begun to use the danger of undivided government as a point for his election, since it is certain that both houses of Congress will remain in Democrat hands.

In a less polarized time it might not be so bad to have a unitary government, as the side that wins can carry out its agenda without obstruction. We might be better off if Ronald Reagan had been able to do all he wanted. But the downside makes it not worthwhile, especially when one side is so radical.

[DGP]

>>I am not sure how that statement relates

I was trying, however ineptly, to agree with you. I am thinking in particular of Fr. John Courtney Murray's understanding of American democracy as "articles of peace" -- as a means by which Christians who disagree may nevertheless find it possible to live in peace with each other.

When in the course of human events such men cease to be Christian, or when otherwise they no longer fall under the Pauline command to be at peace with their fellows, then democracy is no longer an instrument of peace. The instrument -- i.e., the expression of the will in voting, political parties, etc. -- becomes also the product. Democracy begins to favor simply those who are effective in asserting their will. This especially includes those who are willing and able to hold the welfare of others hostage to their own political gains, a kind of brinksmanship -- those who, for example, may prefer to sabotage their own country's war efforts rather than suffer a domestic political defeat. Hence the illiberalism and radicalization of politics.

At the same time, effective exercises of the will often require that they be masked by prettier facades. "Moi? I'm just doing what I believe in my heart to be good and right. It's the other guy: He's being *political.* If things get ugly, it'll be his fault." Hence the criminalization of politics.

I also mentioned democracy, reason, and demogoguery, but this was merely an analogy.

[DGP]

>>When you have a parliamentary system you can no longer have divided government.

Well, yes and no. You can have more than two parties, and a government that depends upon more than one for its survival. I can imagine scenarios in which this would work just as well as our current system.

The bigger problem is with the nationalization of politics. Our republic presupposed that state legislatures would wield far more influence (especially in the form of money) than they currently do. The 14th amendment, the income tax, the New Deal's application of the commerce clause -- all of this has transferred so much power to the federal government, people don't usually perceive much connection between their local politicians and the government of the country. The system is increasingly unwieldy or unaccountable -- leading to what Mr. Koehl described.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>A friend of mine who is a political scientist thinks we should change to a parlimentary system. Do you have any thoughts on that?<<<

A really stupid idea whose shortcoming is best described in the words of one European politician describing how they could ram through laws with which a substantial portion of their country disagreed:

"Fifty percent plus one means we can do what we want".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, yes and no. You can have more than two parties, and a government that depends upon more than one for its survival. I can imagine scenarios in which this would work just as well as our current system.<<<

I have in the last year visited no fewer than nine European countries (as well as the EU Commission and the European Parliament), and I have to say that in almost every multi-party parliamentary country, the government is utterly dysfunctional due to the need to build coalitions of mutually antithetical parties. Such governments are either weak and unstable, or unable to formulate a coherent policy one way or the other.

The UK is the major exception to the rule, there really being only two parties, one center-left, the other center-right. And because there is no proportional representation, each constituency votes for a particular candidate, not for a party slate. This tends to result in very clear-cut results. Even there, though, as the Blair Years show, the majority can run roughshod over minority rights and has no real interest in respecting regional interests.

All that aside, the U.S. is really much too big to run on a parliamentary system. For one thing, the number of representatives would be huge. Britain has more than 670 MPs, while we--more than three times as large--have just 435 Representatives. That aside, parliamentary systems are far too easily swayed by public opinion, something the Founders went out of their way to avoid.

Probably the best thing we could do to improve our system at this point is end the direct election of Senators, going back to having them appointed by state legislatures. Not only does this insulate the Senate from popular passions, but it also elevates the importance of state governments and strengthens federalism.

[GL]

Per Judy's comments, add my ditto.

Our problem is not that we don't have a parliamentarian government, it is that we have taken too much power from the state and local governments and given it to the national government and that our courts, led by the Supreme Court, has taken powers which were intended by the founders to rest with the states, Congress and the President. The last thing we need to do is switch to a parliamentarian government.

[GL]

Now, I would like to get back to Tony's original post.

I am fascinated by the revelation (to me) that the same Hebrew word is used when referencing the serpent's subtlety and Adam and Eve's nakedness. So, at the time of their creation, Adam and Eve were made in the image of God. By his subtlety, the serpent induced Eve to mar that image and, as a result, she became aware that she was, to some extent, now like the serpent. And, of course, by Eve's subtlety, she induced Adam to mar the image of God within him and he, in turn, also became aware that he was, to some extent, now like the serpent. And so, as a consequence, are we all.

Thanks for the lesson in linguistics.

[Atlantic]

That's "Y mae pizza gennyf i", actually.

[Joe Long]

I'd never thought of that saying as an invention of the Enemy...but am perhaps revising my estimate. If it were, as it seems, a universally obvious recommendation - "Think strategically, act tactically" - though actually, even that is a bit flawed.

However, I'm reading it now as "think of Something Big, which justifies and distracts from the damage we want you to do locally". It is the rationalization of every man who sets aside his humanity for "Humanity"; of Karl Marx neglecting his offspring to preach Communist paradise to everyone else's; of the searing of the conscience for the convulsive trigger-pull, for the eventual good of Reich and race. It's eggs and omelets, once again.

The saying could be used in other contexts, of course, but looked at carefully - and in its natural context, Leftism - it now seems clear to me that "Think Globally, Act Locally" is a distinctly unhealthy expression.

Think about, and act in, the SAME arenas, for cryin' out loud. In mission, think of the locality you're reaching for, and act THERE. There is no "global" outreach, not since the tower of Babel.

[labrialumn]

Stuart, as Jerry Pournelle recently noted with the Democrat promise to prosecute President Bush once he is out of office, that when politicians realize that the cost of losing an election is real harm to themselves and their families, the next step is the crossing of the Rubicon.

I could imagine having the House of Representatives be a parliament - giving a voice to minority parties and less of the winner-takes-all system in many States, but then I believe that to go with that, the 16th and 17th Amendments would have to be repealed, to provide balance.

Surely the UK has two major parties: one leftist and the other center-left.

GL, as I was taught it, it was that nakedness sounded like craftiness, and now they realized that they were crafty, and sought to hide themselves from God - not with a single fig leaf as in Renaissance art, but with an improvised ghilly suit.

I prefer "first in Jerusalem, then in Judaea and Samaria, and then to the uttermost parts of the Earth" :-)

What all of the above means regarding the crisis at hand:

"The Obama strategy:

Over-all:
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/Yuri%2BBezmenov/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

For this phase: The Cloward-Piven strategy:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/sowing_acorns_to_reap_the_bigg.html"

[Tony Esolen]

Atlantic,

My book says that you say "Y mae y pizza gennyf i" if you mean "the" pizza; but if you just mean that you have "a" pizza or "some" pizza, you use a different verb: "Yr oes pizza gennyf i." The book is 50 years old ...

[Atlantic]

Out of curiosity now, may I ask the book's title? My older Welsh grammars are in storage (this is fairly formal Welsh), but I've just checked a couple online grammars and I can't find anything that agrees with yours.

'Oes' would be used with interrogative or negative statements - "A oes pizza gennyf i?" and "Nid oes pizza gennyf i" - but not with affimative statements, whether the subject is definite or indefinite. (See p106 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s-8IAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Grammadeg+o+iaith+y+Cymry%22)